Here we coordinate and discuss Wikipedia issues related to
bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our
bot policy and know where to post your issue.
Do not post here if you came to
discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page
discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at
WP:BOTISSUE
A few days ago, I saw option for thanking bots. At first I thought it was a glitch/fluke of some kind. But the option is still there as of today. Is this some desired or undesired change? —usernamekiran
(talk)17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It happened before two or three years ago when Wbm1058 went off the grid for a couple of days, and his home suffered a power outage at the same time, where the bot was running from. I remember suggesting to Wbm to use toolsforge to run the bot, and he tried (I think). I am not sure where the bot is currently running on currently. A side question to @
Primefac, can there be a limited (in time) approval for another bot to take over the work temporarily until Wbm returns. The scope of the edits will be the same as RMCD_bot's work. I volunteer myself if so. The source code is available at
User:RMCD bot/requestedmoves.php and it was last updated 100 days ago. I had just used it to generate the listing at
WP:RMC and it seems to be working fine.
– robertsky (
talk)
03:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Was blocking quickly necessary? Sounds like they were not malfunctioning. This kind of compresses the timetable for getting them replaced from leisurely to urgent. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
10:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed; we should have left them running until they stopped working as intended or a replacement was found. Clearly they were still running properly at the time of blockage, which was after the time of death of the operator. Too little too late now...
Primefac (
talk)
10:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
These bots were publishing revisions under CC-BY-SA, however as the actual person who would own the copyright to those revisions has deceased, they are no longer eligible to issue such licenses. —
xaosfluxTalk12:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, these bots could have continued to run as it was, publishing revisions under CC BY-SA, until it is stopped for one reason or another as a result of an action (the bot programming to be looped indefinitely) and intent (explicitly instructions in the program to publish under the T&Cs of Wikipedia) by the the operator to publish as so as when they were alive. Now that the bots' operations have be interrupted, a continuance would be ill-advised unless a bot operator takes up the mantle.
– robertsky (
talk)
13:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This...is not correct at all. Machine created works are not eligible for copyright protection (currently, see debates over LLM-created works). There is no mechanism in which I, as a bot operator, am constantly giving my approval under the CC licenses just by virtue of being alive. Or: there are plenty of plausible reasons to block accounts controlled by someone who is sadly deceased, copyright is not one of them.
Legoktm (
talk)
13:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The account has been globally locked, so even if I did so (and the task wasn't killed because of the block) it wouldn't do anything.
Primefac (
talk)
15:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The LLM debates have little bearing on this situation. Unlike LLMs, the inputs are known; the process to transform the data is known or can be deduced; the outputs are known.
– robertsky (
talk)
14:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The bot weren't blocked for licensing issues, that's just a red herring. They were blocked for security issues.
They could have remained operatorless until a problem arose, or they naturally crashed. But eventually we'd need new operators for them. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as should someone be allowed to posthumously continue to publish revisions - in general we expect a person to be accountable for any edit or action they make, which literally can not be done here. —
xaosfluxTalk15:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Running out-of-control (running with no operator) was the primary reasoning for my block. The potential derivative works publication component discussion is mostly academic. —
xaosfluxTalk15:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It wasn't out of control, which is I believe everyone's point. The bot was running within its expected parameters, and until such time as that changes and/or it is replaced, it should have been left to run; we have bots operating with inactive operators, should we throw them under the bus as well?
Primefac (
talk)
15:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Everytime you have your bot publish a revision, you are having it agree to the TOS and licenses for you. Perhaps that's a weak argument, but I can't find prior discussions where it was said that bot-published revisions are public domain, and where to draw the line there. —
xaosfluxTalk15:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The copyright argument doesn't apply. What the bot did was delete content (deleting content clearly is not copyrightable) and add hardcoded strings from its source code (
User:HBC AIV helperbot/source), which were already licensed when they were posted on wiki. Agreed it's water under the bridge now, but the account should never have been blocked or locked.
* Pppery *it has begun...15:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Considering these bots compiled statistics and removed handled matters, I doubt anything they did was copyrightable anyway. The suggestion that copyright had anything to do with it is laughable, and I agree that blocking them was premature (especially the AIV bot, which performs a time-critical function).
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?16:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I'll look into taking over AIV helperbot (I'll re-implement the current code for now, but look to port to pywikibot at some point out of preference).
BRFA filed.
Mdann52 (
talk)
15:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Robertsky: - if you want to add me on the request, go for it (just so there isn't a single owner on them). If you've only requested the AdminStatBot, I'll pop a new request in for the other one. However, the mandatory 30 day wait there isn't ideal under these circumstances.
Mdann52 (
talk)
15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Trying to get perl to run on toolforge is... interesting so that was the main reason I wanted to fork it. I've worked out a temporary solution for now so should be back up and running shortly.
Mdann52 (
talk)
16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If there is still interest in maintaining another copy/instance of AIV helperbot, I'll be happy to use SodiumBot to setup a separate secondary instance (I was messing around with the code a while ago)
Sohom (
talk)
17:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mdann52 Filled for both at
phab:T370433 asking for a waiver on the wait time as well, but as what @
Xaosflux suggests, go ahead and fork the aiv helperbot. The AdminStatsBot source codes can't be found on wiki (or I am not looking hard enough), so taking over the tool there would be helpful in getting the tool back up temporarily while I work on an open source version (or hopefully the codes in the Toolforge tool are already open source license, just not published).
– robertsky (
talk)
16:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Are you going to additionally attempt to get those user accounts usurped to you, or just use a new account for the 'tool' ? —
xaosfluxTalk16:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would suggest that the new operators use a new user account, we can easily speedily approve it here. The adminstats stuff should likely be evaluated as to where it gets published (such as to a project space page instead of an operator subpage, but thats no rush). —
xaosfluxTalk17:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just as an administrative note, I've unblocked those 2 accounts. This is mostly moot as they are still locked, but there is certainly enough opposition presented above that ongoing blocking would at least need more discussion. I've not re-flagged them, but if this ends up with developers usurping the credentials to new operators I've got no objection to any 'crat reversing that. I may have been a bit quick to act here, and did go off on a bit of a tangent about licensing above that wasn't really central to the primary concern. For those arguing that we have singular bots that are performing critical tasks, I suggest you start by approaching the existing operators about bringing on apprentices to become co-operators -- or to have mirrored bots on standby. —
xaosfluxTalk17:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)vreply
I'm shocked to hear of James R passing. We used to communicate regularly until he stopped editing on the project about a year or so ago. He was always so helpful
Oh, I see it's only locally unblocked, it's still globally blocked. Didn't really read this entire thread before posting my comment. LizRead!Talk!17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to give my comment here as the locking steward for both accounts; I locked the accounts at the same time as locking JamesR, based on the fact that the accounts belonged to JamesR, who was locked as deceased, as well as the fact that both accounts were also already locally blocked here at enwiki before they were locked. If you want to have them unlocked I would be happy to assist with that, if you find that there is a need to do so at the moment. Also, may JamesR rest in peace, and thanks for their work throughout the years. EPIC (
talk)18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If a steward unlocks and an admin also unblocks, will the bots restart automatically? Or are they now stopped permanently? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe the AIV bot will now be dead (I've taken over the toolforge account and the relevant passwords have been removed, and tasks stopped). A replacement for AIV clerking should be up soon.
Mdann52 (
talk)
07:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, at this point the damage has been done, probably not much reason to restart, especially with replacements in trial.
Primefac (
talk)
15:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I blocked IP 5.14.154.187(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) for disruptive editing via a report at AIV and also because they appeared to be running an unapproved bot - bot-like edits and they claimed to be running a bot
[1]. I left a message about running an unapproved bot on the IP talk page with a link to the bot policy and 7heGame has popped up saying "You can’t do that"; I assume they are the bot-operator. Does anything more need to be done? --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
18:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Good block, both because it was obviously some sort of vandalism (same three images added on every draft I checked) and because the user said it was a bot. No idea about 7heGame.
Anomie⚔18:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yup, that's a vandal (not convinced about the bot part btw). I would treat 7heGame as innocent; they had one of their drafts vandalised by the IP, and it's not a surprising response. --
zzuuzz(talk)18:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On reflection, 7heGame is a victim and I’ve struck out my mention of them. Nothing more needs to be done then (except keep an eye on the IP). Thanks all. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
19:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
ST47ProxyBot
Is ST47ProxyBot still functioning? I’m thinking it might be useful in curbing the current wave of proxies plaguing the admin boards. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply